Originally Posted by forzamilan90
I'm aware of Roche, great player but come on given the absense of the obvious suspect from that post, while having the other two notable current players and having Roche on that list made go after you. Indirectly, it's like saying Roche's level of peak play>Fed's which I cannot accept at all. It's like saying Safin, who's a talented player who's got a notable win over Fed, Safin's peak level of play>say Laver or a Rosewall. Roche, Safin great player with good peak level of play, but no way do they touche the all time greats of the higher tiers.
The Nadal thing is due to match up advantage he has over Fed and the fact the majority of their meetings are on clay (fed has won 2 clay matches against Nadal only). On the other surfaces (hard and grass) Fed actually leads the head to head. So combine the three surfaces, and Fed leads 2-1, but majority of those meetings were on clay, hence why Nadal has so many wins over Fed (11 I believe on clay out of 13 matches). He's the clay GOAT so no shame there, especially when Nadal's game is so perfectly tailored for his Fed's legend killer performances.
Fed ain't a spring chicken anymore, he's not in his prime, hence why he ain't racking up majors. Besides I think he is still hanging on strong (you do know he was number 1 for a while this year?). It's just compared to his prime he appears weaker not (and he has lost a step, it's only natural). You got to give them man more credit than that.
forzamilan90, I'm grateful that you discuss with me seriously instead of insulting me.
I still say that Federer dominated a rather weak field in several years. He is a great player but yet overrated.